I think that this expression means that to achieve the purpose of the book there was a path that needed to be ran over before getting to see actual results such as earning the trust of Mr. foot.

A book about process is not just built around facts but rather stories regarding how the information was originally received. For example, finding old photos in the secret part of an attic. The biographer also wants to let the reader in on his entire journey with Michael Foot. The result will not be a cleaned up version, but a raw telling of both the good and bad aspects throughout the overall journey and process. Many writers might pick only the nice moments by smoothing things over; consequently losing a lot of the truth.

I, too, think “a book about process” refers to the way that the author, you, familiarizes yourself with the subject, Michael Foot. Rather than start Michael Foot, you start with yourself and how you came to know him which also makes it unconventional.

In terms of what gets smoothed over in a biographical narrative, there’s probably hours of recorded conversation and interviews that are conducted and as the author, you condense it and choose the ones that are the most interesting and relevant to tell. In that sense, you are smoothing over their lives, and telling it in a fluid story rather than have it be all over the place.

A book about process focuses on Foot’s philosophies about campaigns and other issues surrounding the British parliament. This is about knowing who Foot is as a person and how he views certain topics from an audio perspective rather than relying on documents to give us an overview of his achievements and failures. By being smoothed over in a biographical narrative, writers can be overly biased towards either his crowning moments or darkest hours. It doesn’t give us a full overview of Foot’s legacy. There is nothing more legitimate than audio interviews to showcase someone’s ability.

Based on the just the preface, “a book process” alludes that this biography was not produced through conventional means. To complete this biography, it took more than just getting information from Michael Foot. So through the several means of gathering information, a process was in the making. That is what I think “a book about process” means.

A narrative that is “smoothed over” is meant to shorten the gaps that may distract or take away from the main story.

As “a book about process”, the biography’s perspective feels to be more in the first person. Instead of simply focusing on a subject, it illustrates how the narrator comes to know the subject.

A book about process encompasses not only the discrete events that distinguish a person’s life as often done in biographies, but the continuous spectrum that defines both notable and mundane characteristics of Michael Foot. By establishing Foot as an individual, Foot can be viewed as a person undergoing growth and change in a dynamic process, unlike a textbook figure known only for his notable achievements; an aspect of a person that biographical narratives fail to capture.

A book about process sounds more like the book covers the process of acquiring the information about the subject, rather than typical biographies, which would focus on the general accomplishes of the subject and smooths over the actual research and interviews done.

A book about process refers to information received in the development stage — a story without any substance. By “smoothing out” the biographical narrative, an author uses the information to inject life into the story through colorful writing technique.

The book doesn’t follow a traditional storytelling arc; there’s a technical approach to it. Biographical narratives may contain a good amount of detail, but there is an inherent bias which may leak into the writing.

A book of process means that the book was made based in the evidences that were recording in different times that showed how Michael Foot was before and what has he become after.
If the reporter have recorded in audio or video everything that Michael Foot said in a specific date and time; that evidence gets smoothed over the biographical narratives because in the recording you have a person telling everybody his own story and not someone else writing about it.

I think the phrase “a book about process,” is meant to let the reader know we aren’t going to be reading the normal formula biography, that simply lays out the facts and removes how the facts were attained. Normally, biography’s are meant to be stories of X’s life and as such the fact must be cleaned up, altered out in order to flow with the story.

By “a book about process” I think it’s more about how the biography was constructed rather than just the narrative story of someone’s life. In a biography, a lot gets smoothed over. Small details, gaps in the narrative, or inconsequential asides can all get smoothed over to better tell the story at large.

A book about process is like a ladder to an understanding. So, this book about process is a step-by-step approach for the reader to understand the biography on a personal level. The things that can get smoothed over are irrelevant things that can disturb or confuse the topic.

Narrating and writing about someone else’s private life is a sensitive issue, therefore you would expect some kind of confrontation or disagreement by the person being interviewed. In this book, delicate matters are being explored such as personal and political life. So one would assume that at the time Mr. Foot tried to provide a sense of honesty but also keeping his image and integrity, and more important, legacy in a good position.

Based on the sentence, I would assume that biographers are often told exactly what information they are allowed to make public, and what to keep secret. Some, in order to stay in the safe zone might oblige, but those that don’t are more interested in seeing where the risk will take them. In this case, the author wants to add their own personal taste into the biography, and more importantly deliver Foot’s true character in a way that has not been done before. It’s an interesting way to mesh the subject as well as the biographer within the text. The confrontation is another risk the author is willing to take, one that will lead to an interesting discovery about Foot’s persona. Whatever his response, it will probably be used later in the book. If anything this confrontation is be a big benefit for the biographer.

In this context, there is going to be a confrontation because as the biographer, you are torn between your duty as a reporter to report something new and intriguing and your role as a friend, in which case it would be morally wrong to share this secret with the public.

Whenever anyone conducts a narration of someone’s life, it can lead to conflict. There are certain moments that the person being interviewed doesn’t want documented. The moments increase when it involves someone associated with politics. It’s such a tightrope for them, as they are judged on every action or word. Michael Foot appears to be a genuine person, but he is very emotional and can spark outrage. A narration of someone’s life will usually focus on their work ethic and how they earned accolades. Assessing Foot’s character appears to be a touchy subject, especially with someone as intense as him.

When interviewing somebody, you discover different sides of the same person which you want to share to your reader. However, the individual being interviewed may be opposed to certain facets of their personality being exposed, whether it be to protect their image or for fear that interviews may try to indulge in the more negative characteristics. Overall, there is often a difference between what an interviewer wants to show and what a subject wants to be seen.

A confrontation is possible due to the matter of the subject being explored. More importantly, I feel the that Mr.Foot’s religious upbringings would be a key instigator of an unpopular discussion. However, I believe the main reason for a confrontation is directly correlated to how the interviewer conveys the questions. In life, misinterpretations of a question can lead to heated response. In that case, the one who lead the confrontation is the one probing for answers. It should be a duty of the interviewer to ask in a manner that does not produce confrontations. Would it be right to assume that at the moment, you were unclear of how to ask Mr.Foot about the matter?

Having become aware of what was possibly a well kept secret, Rollyson ruminates over the possibility of confront Foot about this, deciding against the temptation to turn a blind eye as the typical biographer, and to pursue the truth in his book about
process.

The trap of “becoming privy to secrets that could not be divulged” could result in a disagreement between the writer acquiring information (most likely wanting the entire unabridged story) for publishing, and the source who is trying to control what they don’t want the public getting a hold of. A confrontation would naturally arise between these conflicting parties.

There seems to be confrontation on the horizon because the biographer is attempting to pry far more information out of Michael, than is willing to be said. A tough balance between being a biographer who is trying to do his job by giving the people what they want, but also not looking to be too intrusive towards his good pal.

Because he started to notice the discomfort that Michael foot begun to have. As interviewee, Foot wants to keep some things for himself but interviewers always are going to try to get as much information as they can. so interviewer and interviewee will enter in confrontation while trying to keep or to get value information.

There will be a confrontation because the reporter is there to acquire details, mostly intimate and personal from the subject who may be reserved and unwilling to share them.A confrontation has a negative implication that obtaining such information will not be through merry conversation, but may face rejection form the subject.

There’s going to be a confrontation because the writer is gaining access to secrets that he couldn’t write about. But by censoring the information he wouldn’t be telling the full story, but also an issue is topics Foot probably wouldn’t want shared related to his sex life, even though things like Jill’s rape were already public knowledge.

Whenever a person gets to know someone more intimately than was originally intended, that someone’s details, thoughts, actions that would normally never be considered of said person (by the general public), become exposed. However, if secrets are considered fair game to be exposed, especially between a biographer and his subject, there is bound to be arguments. By revealing this type of intimate information could ruin a person’s reputation or question who that person really is.

There’s going to be a confrontation based on what does or does not get published. Generally, those prominent enough to be written about only want certain sides of themselves made public. But, as a biographer, you would want to tell the entire story, scars and all. That clash of ideals about what should be published will likely cause confrontation.

Mr. Foot might start to open up and be too authentic for his own liking with the biographer. Whether he was okay with having his secrets publicized wasn’t as important as how he interacted with the biographer

There’s going to be a confrontation because in order to get the information that the reporter needs, resolve is necessary.